Canine Admirers Give Trump Unleashed Advantage in 2024 Elections

The 2024 electoral journey unfolded prominently against the backdrop of pet owners’ preferences, distinctive among cat and dog enthusiasts. In a turn of events that might catch some off-guard, the canine aficionados turned the tide in favour of President-elect Donald Trump, granting him a narrow majority of the mixed pet-owning demographic, comprising both cat and dog dwellers. A survey encompassing over 120,000 voters indicated a boosting influence from dog owners nudging Trump into the victorious spot. On the contrary, these dog lovers were conspicuously less receptive to the Democratic proposition in Vice President Kamala Harris.

Cat proprietors, interestingly, remained divided on their allegiance between the two running candidates. Overall, close to two-thirds of voters identified as pet owners, be it of a dog or a cat. However, despite this sizable representation, the political landscape often overlooks this segment. In a unique twist this year, some past remarks made by Trump’s running mate, Senator JD Vance of Ohio, stoked controversy among the ‘childless cat ladies’, propelling the matter into the campaign spotlight.

Harris was successful in securing strong backing from women who owned a cat, sans a dog. However, this cohort constituted only a minor fragment of the voters, thus largely not affecting the overall electoral outcome. The electorate as a whole seemed unmoved by Vance’s comments, eliciting little resentment against the Republican line-up.

Examining single pet owners, women that solely owned cats leaned more favourably towards Harris’ candidacy as compared to dog owners, or those having both a cat and a dog. Further, six out of ten women in the singular cat ownership category threw their weight behind Harris. This pattern extended consistently to women who did not have any pets at all.

Despite Harris’ traction with female cat owners, this success story did not translate well among their male counterparts. Trump claimed victory among men owning only cats, albeit by a slim margin, with a tad bit more than half of them casting votes in his favour.

It is purely conjectural to ascertain the role of Vance’s remarks in influencing Harris’ popularity among female single-cat owners. However, a substantial majority of these voters exhibited ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ antagonistic views of Vance. This subset was also more inclined to harbour unfavourable impressions of not only Trump but also the Republican party, compared to women who were singular dog owners or those sharing their homes with both cats and dogs.

Understanding the pet influence in the voting pattern, it appears that single cat-owning women were already less amenable to the idea of voting for Trump, even before the resurfacing of Vance’s comments. Barely four out of ten female voters only owning a cat identified as Republicans.

The election aftermath, however, throws the gauntlet at the Democrats, indicating a need to better engage with dog owners. As observed, pet owners with at least one dog, including those having a cat, were more predisposed favourably towards Trump. Interestingly, these dual pet-owners and only dog-owners constituted a majority segment of the voters.

Single cat owners not having a dog at home represented a mere 15% of the voters. On the flip side, every one in five voters owned both a cat and a dog, while three out of ten voters had solely a dog. This meant that dog owners swayed crucial voting blocs during the election.

Trump emerged victorious amongst six out of ten male voters owning a dog but no cat, and roughly half the female voters from this group. While, Trump’s campaign refrained from making direct overtures towards dog owners, akin to what Harris’ campaign did with cat owners, Trump was not reluctant to make incendiary accusations.

Claims were floated asserting that immigrants in Ohio were reportedly kleptomaniac, their preys of choice being the dogs or cats of locals. However, there has been no concrete evidence underpinning such claims affecting pet owners’ voting decisions.

Party allegiance, unsurprisingly, seemed to be a predominant contributor. About six in ten men owning only a poodle or a pooch’s breed identified as Republicans, something also echoed among half of the female dog owners. Consequently, the pathway for Democrats to curry favour with dog enthusiasts does not appear simplistic.

Being pet-less, both Trump and Harris ran their campaigns without the furry camaraderie of a dog. Future campaign strategies potentially could weave in more ‘woof’, possibly turning voter’s sentiments favourably.